Libtard Thread

[NickDagger]

The future:

[Tufty]

  I dont know if thats the only entrance in Berkeley, but a little bit of inconvenience wont hurt anyone. Especially if its for a reason.

 The same type of protest has happened in my university's restaurant. The university restaurant was an old building that didnt give the opportunity for people with disabilities to access it with ease. So various students blocked the entrance of the entrance for one out of the three hours that the restaurant is open(The idea was to make everyone feel like the students with disabilities). That was a direct cause and there were also students with disabilities among the protesters. That didnt stop people who didnt give a fuck to cause trouble and break the blockage just because they are in a hurry and they need to catch up with a class after eating. For me those people are the retards. Personally I hadnt any clue about the protest, but being a tall and well built guy I urged to help them with evading the assholes until the blocking was over so I could eat.

 People only care about themselves, so until that changes, I support anyone who spoils their routine and their miserable life. Fuck you!


PS after two weeks of that protest an elevator was built inside the restaurant.

[pizzafliptofakie]

The problem I have with their behavior is that it seems like they're under the assumption that everybody is against their cause, which is pretty unlikely when you're in the heart of a liberal college campus. I'm a straight white male who very regularly speaks out against racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc. And if somebody starting spouting racial accusations at me while I was trying to go to class, I wouldn't rethink my life philosophies. I would think that they were a dick and leave, making those social boundaries grow even more.

These issues are very important to talk about and I commend anybody who participates in these events of social progression, having participated in a few protests myself. However if you can't talk about these ideas in a civil manner you're not going to get anybody else on your side. If you're striving for social equality it's important not to ostracize somebody because you may not agree with them at face value. Not everybody is a bigot, but also not everybody is even really socially aware of these issues, and if you disregard the latter and assume the former you're only going to create a larger social divide.

[Tufty]

 You are correct about accusing people randomly for being this or that when they dont know them personally. However they have the right to fuck with anyone who doesnt respect the rules of their protest. You are a total asshole if you try to get through if there is another entrance. You are an asshole anyway if you are not sensitized by such matters. If you think you are troubled that much call the police or campus security dont go hero mode, you guessed right people who call the police are assholes too.  Anyway my point is that you are an asshole if you cant at least show some sympathy and respect to people who try to do something about social issues ( even if  their actions are not the best)

[pizzafliptofakie]

You are correct about accusing people randomly for being this or that when they dont know them personally. However they have the right to fuck with anyone who doesnt respect the rules of their protest. You are a total asshole if you try to get through if there is another entrance. You are an asshole anyway if you are not sensitized by such matters. If you think you are troubled that much call the police or campus security dont go hero mode, you guessed right people who call the police are assholes too.  Anyway my point is that you are an asshole if you cant at least show some sympathy and respect to people who try to do something about social issues ( even if  their actions are not the best)

That's the thing though. I feel like most, if not all of the students they encountered could sympathize with their cause at least to some degree. It's not really about finding another entrance. It's the fact that they were just being downright jerks to people, therefore making those of us who try and push for social justice and equality look bad. I've read a number of testimonies from people from that campus saying that, when they would try and talk to them in a civil manner that they would just get shouted at and accused of being a racist. (This includes colored people who tried speaking to them.) I'm not saying it's okay to use force against these protesters or anything like that, but at face value they were just being jerks to people, and it's sad that there will be people who will associate social activism with this behavior.

[DillAndKalis]

You are correct about accusing people randomly for being this or that when they dont know them personally. However they have the right to fuck with anyone who doesnt respect the rules of their protest. You are a total asshole if you try to get through if there is another entrance. You are an asshole anyway if you are not sensitized by such matters. If you think you are troubled that much call the police or campus security dont go hero mode, you guessed right people who call the police are assholes too.� Anyway my point is that you are an asshole if you cant at least show some sympathy and respect to people who try to do something about social issues ( even if� their actions are not the best)

I disagree with this. Nobody has the right to "fuck with" anybody that's just trying to walk a path. Here's another example of regular people trying to commute to their jobs getting "fucked with" by protesters that are probably not going to change the commuters opinions about their cause in a positive way. These commuters and the Berkeley students are not assholes for trying to get to class and to work using a public route.

[shark tits]

how many political idealists does it take to change a light bulb?
none, political idealists can't change shit! --- isaac brock
heh, i can get behind protests sometimes but they're really ineffective to winning people's hearts and minds. they are however a spontaneous street party and i love insubordination.
at WTO this black kid was trying to get to work. he pushed, shoved and jostled his way past hippies only to be greeted by a phalanx of darth vader cops. they turned his happy [unhappy] ass around where he had to break through the protesters again. whole thing was rather shtooops and he was slightly aggressive the 2nd time around but i felt for him. he wasn't no WTO master of the universe motherfucker, he was prolly a low level employee who despite all his rage still just makes minimum wage.
everything that isn't skating is a piece of shit but whatever. let's dance!

[QUIT SINNIN]

 I dont know if thats the only entrance in Berkeley, but a little bit of inconvenience wont hurt anyone. Especially if its for a reason.

 The same type of protest has happened in my university's restaurant. The university restaurant was an old building that didnt give the opportunity for people with disabilities to access it with ease. So various students blocked the entrance of the entrance for one out of the three hours that the restaurant is open(The idea was to make everyone feel like the students with disabilities). That was a direct cause and there were also students with disabilities among the protesters. That didnt stop people who didnt give a fuck to cause trouble and break the blockage just because they are in a hurry and they need to catch up with a class after eating. For me those people are the retards. Personally I hadnt any clue about the protest, but being a tall and well built guy I urged to help them with evading the assholes until the blocking was over so I could eat.

 People only care about themselves, so until that changes, I support anyone who spoils their routine and their miserable life. Fuck you!


PS after two weeks of that protest an elevator was built inside the restaurant.

Dude how old are you? You're mad people who pay shitloads of money for tuition are trying to get to class, the whole point of being on that campus in the first place? You then say you have no ckue what the protest is about but join in anyway just to fuck with people? You are clearly the person here. I really hope for your sake you grow up sometime soon.

Again, college kids who dont live in reality probably don't understand that if the restaurant wasn't compying with ADA laws, simply threaten/ file a lawsuit, boycott the restaurant, speak to the owners/local newspaper, etc..

Pissing off random civilians who have nothing to do with a lack of a wheelchair ramp has absolutely zero point.

[Tufty]

 When I say I didnt have a clue I meant that I wasnt part of the protest before and then I joined, because I agreed with their cause and I was angry with the assholes. People had done some of what you mentioned and nothing happened for 2 years. Restaurant cant be boycotted as it is the only one on campus and property of the university. You protest when the legal way fails and you are right.

 Number one rule of a protest is to piss off civilians and disrupt normality. You guys are almost illiterate when it comes to social procedures. I knew that cold war damaged americans but damage is beyond any imagination, Its a shame as once upon a time you had a great anarchist and communist movement. Of course in times when people had some class consciousness and the neoliberal policies hadnt changed us into selfish cunts, people would be pissed off with the state and not with the protesters. Our sense of solidarity is non existent thats why we keep getting fucked. As long as anyone minds his job we are bound to get in deeper shit.

 Anyway, yeah personal attacks are lame and protesters are dicks about it. On the other hand fuck anyone who doesnt respect protests and tries to be a cowboy.

[fulltechnicalskizzy]

I'm a straight white male who very regularly speaks out against racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/etc

[skateboardnorth]

Best triggered gif

http://imgur.com/gallery/GhgZyV2

[NickDagger]

[Beer Keg Peg Leg]

honestly nickdagger you are a fucking faggot

[NickDagger]

G'Day! Crikey! Good onya. I reckon you are a bloke, yeah? Would you give me a Mate's rate for a fair go at your bum?

[Righteous Victim]

Now vile SU refuse to commemorate Holocaust…because it’s ‘eurocentric and colonialist’

[ginatran]

honestly nickdagger you are a fucking faggot

triggered

[PieceOfShit22]

honestly nickdagger you are a fucking faggot

[NickDagger]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/

Free speech is so last century. Today's students want the right to be comfortable

I was attacked by a swarm of Stepford students this week. On Tuesday, I was supposed to take part in a debate about abortion at Christ Church, Oxford. I was invited by the Oxford Students for Life to put the pro-choice argument against the journalist Timothy Stanley, who is pro-life. But apparently it is forbidden for men to talk about abortion. A mob of furious feministic Oxford students, all robotically uttering the same stuff about feeling offended, set up a Facebook page littered with expletives and demands for the debate to be called off. They said it was outrageous that two human beings who do not have uteruses should get to hold forth on abortion  identity politics at its most basely biological  and claimed the debate would threaten the mental safety of Oxford students. Three hundred promised to turn up to the debate with instruments,  heaven knows what  that would allow them to disrupt proceedings.

Incredibly, Christ Church capitulated, the college's censors living up to the modern meaning of their name by announcing that they would refuse to host the debate on the basis that it now raised security and welfare issues. So at one of the highest seats of learning on Earth, the democratic principle of free and open debate, of allowing differing opinions to slog it out in full view of discerning citizens, has been violated, and students have been rebranded as fragile creatures, overgrown children who need to be guarded against any idea that might prick their souls or challenge their prejudices. One of the censorious students actually boasted about her role in shutting down the debate, wearing her intolerance like a badge of honour in an Independent article in which she argued that, The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups.

[The Nose Face]

Shout out to my main man, Nick D

[D. Bag]

None of this shit represents liberalism.

Considering how each person who contributed to the examples will certainly self-identify as liberal while claiming everyone else is a brain-dead heartless idiot, I'd say it's actually a great representation of liberalism!

But, in truth, it's actually primarily a bunch of great examples of "progressivism" more than anything else.  Progressives are truly the golden moonbats of the USA, the kind who say that the US is oppressive to women and gays while ignoring the fact that the Middle East is just a wee bit more oppressive to both.  Progressives never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, though!

[Tufty]

Expand Quote

None of this shit represents liberalism.

[close]

Considering how each person who contributed to the examples will certainly self-identify as liberal while claiming everyone else is a brain-dead heartless idiot, I'd say it's actually a great representation of liberalism!

But, in truth, it's actually primarily a bunch of great examples of "progressivism" more than anything else.  Progressives are truly the golden moonbats of the USA, the kind who say that the US is oppressive to women and gays while ignoring the fact that the Middle East is just a wee bit more oppressive to both.  Progressives never let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, though!

 When you say such things I dont find it it unusual to be called a brain dead idiot.

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/it_didnt_always_suck_to_be_a_woman_in_afghanistan

And who supported Talibans because they served their interests in Middle East? Yeah the US. ISIS is the outcome of the US-EU-West intervention that went out of control. It all boils down to one thing. Imperialism-Capitalism. So the culprit is the same in both situations. The fact that somewhere things are worse doesnt mean you cant speak about your situation, or else you are not away from falling into worse situations.  

 Capitalism needs oppresion to produce hyper-value. The more oppresion the more hyper value. Oppression may be lower in West just because the production has better quality and can provide more value because it provides more profits. Middle east has minerals so oppresion serves the low prices of minerals and large profit margin for the production of the west. Of course its more complicated but you can get the idea why oppresion in Middle East is no different than oppresion in the US as a matter of the cause. 

[tobey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/business/bud-light-withdraws-slogan-after-it-draws-ire-online.html?_r=0

[NickDagger]

[NickDagger]

Never go  full libtard. Karma:

[sametelt]

Woah

[NickDagger]

Is Having a Loving Family an Unfair Disadvantage?

So many disputes in our liberal democratic society hinge on the tension between inequality and fairness: between groups, between sexes, between individuals, and increasingly between families.

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn't gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity, he says.

I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.  

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions, from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories, form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

So, what to do?

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field. 

It's not the first time a philosopher has thought about such a drastic solution. Two thousand four hundred years ago another sage reasoned that the care of children should be undertaken by the state.

Plato pulled few punches in The Republic when he called for the abolition of the family and for the children of the elite to be given over to the state. Aristotle didn't agree, citing the since oft-used argument of the neglect of things held in common. Swift echoes the Aristotelian line. The break-up of the family is plausible maybe, he thinks, but even to the most hard-hearted there's something off-key about it.

Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong, he says.

Intuitively it doesn't feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defense of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: Why are families a good thing exactly?

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

It's the children's interest in family life that is the most important, says Swift. From all we now know, it is in the child's interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.

He concedes parenting might not be for everyone and for some it can go badly wrong, but in general it is an irreplaceable relationship.

Parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and wellbeing of adults.

It seems that from both the child's and adult's point of view there is something to be said about living in a family way. This doesn't exactly parry the criticism that families exacerbate social inequality. For this, Swift and Brighouse needed to sort out those activities that contribute to unnecessary inequality from those that don't.                                

What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn't need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people's children.

The test they devised was based on what they term familial relationship goods; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.  

For Swift, there's one particular choice that fails the test.

Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods, he says. It's just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.

In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don't the difference in their life chances, is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don't, he says.

This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps in the interests of leveling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be restricted. In Swift's mind this is where the evaluation of familial relationship goods goes up a notch.

You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.

Swift makes it clear that although both elite schooling and bedtime stories might both skew the family game, restricting the former would not interfere with the creation of the special loving bond that families give rise to. Taking the books away is another story.

We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can't read bedtime stories to your kids because it's not fair that some kids get them and others don't, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.

So should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

I don't think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people's children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally, quips Swift.

In the end Swift agrees that all activities will cause some sort of imbalance from joining faith communities to playing Saturday cricket, and it's for this reason that a theory of familial goods needs to be established if the family is to be defended against cries of unfairness.

We should accept that lots of stuff that goes on in healthy families, and that our theory defends, will confer unfair advantage, he says.

It's the usual bind in ethics and moral philosophy: very often values clash and you have to make a call. For Swift and Brighouse, the line sits shy of private schooling, inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.

Their conclusions remind one of a more idyllic (or mythic) age for families: reading together, attending religious services, playing board games, and kicking a ball in the local park, not to mention enjoying roast dinner on Sunday. It conjures a family setting worthy of a classic Norman Rockwell painting. But not so fast: when you ask Swift what sort of families is he talking about, the �50s reverie comes crashing down into the 21st century.

When we talk about parents, rights, we're talking about the person who is parenting the child. How you got to be parenting the child is another issue. One implication of our theory is that it's not one's biological relation that does much work in justifying your rights with respect to how the child is parented.

For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it.

We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.

Then, does the child have a right to be parented by her biological parents? Swift has a ready answer.

It's true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people's identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.

From this realisation arises another twist: two is not the only number.

Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: there might be two, there might be three, and there might be four, says Swift.

[weedpop]

Plato was such a libtard.

[GoodguyEh]

Some girl at my school threw her boyfriends computer in a tub full of water because he cheated on her and because all of his school work was on there she was expelled for sabotage and intentionally trying to disrupt his studies. In a lot of highly competitive programs this kind of shit could get you in a lot of trouble.

[Tufty]

Expand Quote

[close]

Some girl at my school threw her boyfriends computer in a tub full of water because he cheated on her and because all of his school work was on there she was expelled for sabotage and intentionally trying to disrupt his studies. In a lot of highly competitive programs this kind of shit could get you in a lot of trouble.

What if your dog ate your homework?

Cant believe the state the world has reached.

[Mother Goose.]

nickydag, young rehash refeed aka yung clickbait aka roll of the tounge in dung (rotting). new mixtape, chives & social disparities II